Let us just hope that thses guys [74.125.95.132] aren't right, or we are wasting billions on nothing. Sorry about the cache link, but the site appears to be down ATM. For those that don't like to RTFL, it is a new study that looks at temp data from 58-08 and says that a full 80% of the changes in temp is NOT man made, but rather the result of natural environmental cycles, similar to how Greenland was upon a time was warm enough to be farm land.

I'm not saying I believe one way or another, not that it matters when there is so much money to be made on scams like "carbon credits" but you do have to admit it would suck to blow all the billions and trillions of dollars only to find out there ain't a damned thing you can do, it is just good old mama nature screwing with us.

admit it would suck to blow all the billions and trillions of dollars only to find out there ain't a damned thing you can do

There are many reasons to migrate from fossil fuels, the most compelling being that they're going to run out very soon. The changing climate is also a worry (which we wouldn't want to encourage to change faster than it already is), but it's not the only reason, and the money spent on migrating to alternative energy sources certainly wouldn't be wasted.

There are many reasons to migrate from fossil fuels, the most compelling being that they're going to run out very soon. The changing climate is also a worry (which we wouldn't want to encourage to change faster than it already is), but it's not the only reason, and the money spent on migrating to alternative energy sources certainly wouldn't be wasted.

Well, the question is, does the increased fuel efficiency actually pay for itself? The thing is, the more efficient you are, the more complex you are. The more complex you are, the more you cost. This relationship between efficiency and cost is exponential due to increased complexity efficiency demands. I put together a simple JavaScript model of this at http://www.treatyist.com/issue1/savetheearth.aspx [treatyist.com] . Basically, by jiggering the predicted cost of fuel (using gasoline as a baseline), versus, the exponent of increased energy efficiency costs, you can arrive at a number of scenarios where reducing greenhouse gasses actually doesn't pay for itself. If it pays anyone, it also pays the Chinese and the Europeans..

In any case, most models show that even a rather dramatic altering of CO2 emissions will not alter the course of climate change for a minimum of 200 years. Even if we stopped now, the glaciers are still going to melt. The CO2 is already in the air.

And as computers have increased in complexity from the models in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, so too have they increased in cost and size, right?

New technology is expensive, and it's difficult to find a cost effectiveness sweet spot. As new technology matures it becomes old technology, and old technology becomes increasingly inexpensive as time goes on. We find new, better, more efficient ways to manufacture the same device, and as it matures its cost efficacy also increases.

This is why radical shifts in technology are rare; it's unusual for dramatically new tech to be obviously superior to the old tech when it's still in its infancy. And so from this perspective when the required shift is not dictated by financial forces but some other force, financial reasons are not going to be one of the early motivating factors for the change.

And as computers have increased in complexity from the models in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, so too have they increased in cost and size, right?

The capital required to make them, has, yes, most certainly. It's only because there are a lot more customers do we have the illusion of lower prices. But right now it costs billions of dollars to bring a CPU to market, and it didn't cost nearly that before. Before there were many players because the barriers to entry were not so high, but now, there are few. You even see this in software. How many operating systems were there twenty years ago? How many today? IT's the capital costs get higher and higher.

Well, the question is, does the increased fuel efficiency actually pay for itself?

Actually, no, that's not the question at all. The question is what are you going to do when oil is permanently above 100USD a barrel and climbing, or worse, constantly volatile? What are you going to do in 50 years when the supply of oil is tightly constrained and wars are being fought over supplies? We've had an easy ride so far due to fossil fuels just lying around with a lot of stored energy which is easy to release, but that's not going to last forever, and even if it were we'd be creating massive pollution problems (see China and India currently) if we stuck to things like coal power plants long term, quite apart from climate impacts.

The thing is, the more efficient you are, the more complex you are. The more complex you are, the more you cost.

I'm afraid you've just made this connection up. What examples make you feel this three-way relation is universally true as you assert?

Many things are complex and yet inefficient, and vice versa. To pick an example from power generation - photovoltaic cells are at present complex, and yet inefficient, whereas solar water heating is very simple (tube with water/salt mixture in it), and very efficient. Modern computers are more complex and efficient than the space shuttle ones, and yet cost less. etc. etc.

Just because new tech tends to be complex and costly does not mean it will always be so, and there is no overall 'law' which states that efficiency == complexity == cost, and your statistics are meaningless as they are predicated on this assumption.

Even if we stopped now, the glaciers are still going to melt.

We don't actually know with any certainty what's going to happen, save that it probably won't be pretty. We also know the different of a few degrees rise in temperature could mean metres in sea levels, and we have an awful lot of useful coastal land that would put underwater. As I have pointed out, there are many other reasons to stop using dirty fuels like coal anyway, quite apart from greenhouse gases and climate change. It might cost a little more in the short term, but in the long term it makes a lot of sense to diversify sources of energy and use ones with the least environmental impact.

Not to mention my big problem with the whole "green thing" (and I usually lean socialist) is this: Two words-Carbon Credits. Carbon credits is the biggest pile of total horseshit since the Catholics were able to talk suckers into buying "indulgences" that let you screw your neighbor's wife or generally act like a douche as long as you had a big checkbook. If you are gonna cut emmisions, then cut them (I think the economy will crater, but that's another story) but this carbon credit horseshit is just a way to line pockets by jumping on the green gravy train.

And considering we actually have so many governments seriously taking a look at this crap (as well as the last I checked the UN saying all us "first world" countries should just hand over a couple of hundred billion to the third world so they can get their carbon credits schemes off the ground) tells me that there is some big money out there that figures this will be a prefect scam to get by the rabid greenies. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if Goldman Sachs have a nice big chunk lined up for themselves already.

There is a BIG difference between developing better tech and using green as buzzword bingo for a cash grab. And from what I have seen it looks like we are more likely to get the latter than the former.

Well, which is it, are fossil fuels going to run out soon, and therefore aren't actually present in sufficient quantities to present much of a threat, or is there way too much carbon locked in fossil fuels for our continued health, and we should get off them before we exhaust the supply?

And the reason that water pipe seems to be leaking is almost certainly just natural wear and tear, the building has had water leaks in the past, I mean we shouldn't even stop hitting it with that hammer, it's not like we're making any kind of differ-FWOOOOSH!

Of course climate change is happening. It always has. The question are WHAT is happening, and HOW the information is treated. If anyone, including noted scientists, say anything remotely the opposite of the climate change cabal, they are run out of town, belitted by their peers. They have their jobs & credentials taken away. That sounds more like the status quo is trying to hide something to me.
When I was growing up, I was always taught to question the mainstream. But if you do that when it comes to climate change, you are labeled a nut.
And now we all these new fangled ways to make money from climate change. And I guarantee you, the poor & middle class will be the ones paying.
The rich just buy their way out with carbon credits.

If anyone, including noted scientists, say anything remotely the opposite of the climate change cabal, they are run out of town, belitted by their peers. They have their jobs & credentials taken away.

Just to prove that denalists don't suffer from paranoid delusions...

Meanwhile in the real world there is no such thing as "the climate change cabal," what there is are thousands of mainstream scientists who basically agree, and a handful who are either skeptical (not a bad thing in itself), or outright denialist. The scientist of greatest "note" who falls outside the mainstream view, (and even he seems to have conceeded on AGW now), has not lost his job or credentials but retains his professorship at MIT. Even the kind of "scientists" who "publish" in phish-journals like Energy and Environment, are not thrown out of the academy --though they damage they do to poor unsuspecting individuals like yourself would be minimised if they were.

When I was growing up, I was always taught to question the mainstream.

Which has left you automatically assuming that if 3000+ expert scientists say black is black, and 50 scientist (of which maybe a handful qualify as experts) say black is white, that black simply must be white. Given the epistemological rigor of western Science, "questioning" mainstream science (not merely in regard to climate change) is no guarantee of good mental health. Of course, it's a different story in regard to belief systems which are held as mainstream without such strong foundations.

But if you do that when it comes to climate change, you are labeled a nut.

Putting to one side the more finessed skepticism of a Lindzen or a Piekle, chances are that people with a predisposition to reject science on the basis of how well established that science is are nuts. As you confess, your denialism doesn't result from any appreciation of the science, but from the psychological effects of what you were taught "when you were growing up," or rather, from your tendency to overgeneralise what you were taught to fields of human knowledge where it is simply inappropriate

Perhaps you should balance a skepticism of the mainstream with a skepticism of the contrarian? You might not be so easily duped by AGW-denialists if you did.

Hmmmm lets consider the "for" and "against" lobby's here:
For - a majority of the scientific community, most sensible thinkers.
Against - A small minority of sceptical scientists who on the whole tend not to be climatologists... and that nutbag down the road who lives in his mother's basement and believes that JFK was assassinated by time travelling Nazi robots sent back by the NWO in league with the communist vampires, controlled by the Zionist overlords.

In the 1850s hundreds of scientists in the best scientific schools and departments in London were in consensus that "Miasma" was what was causing Cholera outbreaks in Soho, London.

The one individual - John Snow (who I'm sure was called the 18th century equivalent of a "denialist" and "deluded" by the scientific community and the likes of you) who applied real rigourous science in the face of the "scientific consensus" found that to the contrary and completely correctly that it was tainted water not the air causing the outbreaks. Fortunately he had gone to great lengths to document and his research and the great and all knowing "scientific community" immediately reversed their position and accepted his better and obviously correct theory.

Oh wait they didn't, they did exactly what you are doing here.

They completely ignored his research, called him a fool and over the next ten years thousands more died, the equivalent of millions of pounds of taxes was spent on ridiculous "solutions" produced by the "scientific community" for the Government to fix the the so called "Miasma" problem all the while feeling smug in their knowledge that they had "consensus" and were 100% right.

It wasn't until nearly 10 years after his death that he was acknowledged as being correct.

We won't even go into the debacle that confronted Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis from the scientific "community" when he suggested horror of horrors that WASHING YOUR HANDS may prevent the transmission of disease.

Your argument is nothing more than the exact same argument the religious use to shut down dissent, an argument which goes "The establishment has formed consensus, and who are YOU to question what our leaders have studied".

A. Don't be so sure of yourself.B. Stop placing so much faith in a new and very very undefined "science".C. Calling people names and acting all smug makes you come off more like a born again christian than anything else.

Errr.. It was also the political establishment and the London corporations who opposed Snow, Since what he proposed cost money and meant disruption to their business. In turn they bolstered the old school scientists (who KNEW miasma was the cause, because it had been believed as fact for hundreds of years) to resist him. They maintained this even as he presented irrefutable evidence he was right.
Your analogy was accurate 30 years ago, back then there were a few scientists saying 'we cannot continue consuming resources at this rate, we will disrupt our environment too severely if we do', names you might recognise such as Lovelock, Sagan, etc. And they got treated as 'idiots, idealists, and hippies', back then, by the same talking heads that even now continue to resist anything that hurts their profit and power lust.
So that is an interesting analogy, but like most deniers you deliberately twist it. The reality is that you are essentially one of those old-guard fools arguing well after the fact that Snow was wrong.. and desperately clinging to a miasma theory that flatly contradicts rationality and reality.

Did you know people will pay good money for that kind of expertise in phyco-analyisis? The internet bombards people with bullshit, there are people following around media personalities demanding they discuss "Building 7". Surely this is a sign that Sagan's nightmare of a Demon Haunted World has arrived...

I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudo-science and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us-then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls. The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir. - Demon Haunted World - Science as a candle in the dark [wikipedia.org]. - Carl Sagan (1995)

The company I work for has some work in Uzbekistan. Reading up on the CIA page, it says that while there is no official censorship of the media, there is widespread self-censorship. Anyone who does not censor themselves is usually fired or "taken care of." So while there may be no official cabal of Global Warming alarmists, it does not mean there there are no dire consequences for taking a stance against it.

Actually many of those 'thousands of mainstream scientists' don't know how they got on, or how they can get off that list.

They don't know how they got on a list of contributing scientists?:o They got on the list by contributing. Hey!

ALL of this Man Made Climate Change initiative comes down to what?.. the IPCC.

As a man I take offence to that, women are every bit as responsible as we are. And you have put the cart before the horse --the IPCC was set up in response to concerns about Anthopogenic Global Warming (AGW).

And what are the IPCC? A U.N. organization (panel). So what does that make MMCC? A Political Agenda.

Doesn't follow!
If someone repairs a window at the White House are they a politician? I.e. it is possible to do work for a political organisation that is not itself political.

The IPCC consists of three working groups. WG1is dedicated to synthesising the work done in the physical science that has a bearing on the subject. It's agenda, in contradistinction to WG3, is scientfic not political. But perhaps you are of a conspiritorial mindset, and you think I'm being terribly naive here.

I am always perplexed at how many intelligent people say, "even if we aren't sure about MMCC, we shouldn't take the risk".

You could have a point there, but it's not relevant, bcause we are sure at a 90-95% confidence level (depending on which particular finding we are discussing).

I would then ask you to recognize the real risks of handing power over to that organization.

OK, I've got you pegged now!

You error of thought here is to believe that in lowering our use of fossil fuels, looking for new energy sources and greater efficiency amount to handing over power to the IPCC, or the UN, or the Elders of Zion or whatever "organization" you had in mind.

... take off that damned Che Guevara t-shirt!

I am relieved to see that you have no political agenda yourself. For a moment there I thought your jaundice was being motivated by projection [wikipedia.org].

Do you think that the rising temperatures in Greenland and Alaska and the shrinking north pole ice cover are lies? Come on, that's about as retarded and paranoid as the flat earthers. Just look at the pictures, man. They won't ALL be lying to you.

As for money to made with carbon credits, up until now it hasn't exactly worked very well, has it?

If you're simply "Questioning the Mainstream", you're missing the point somewhat. The point is not to question something specific; the point is to question everything. Not only should you be sceptic of people who believe that global warming is real and man-made, but also of those who deny this. In fact, what you should do in all cases is not trust anyone, but look at the studies and data yourself, and judge it on sound scientific reasons.

"If you're simply "Questioning the Mainstream", you're missing the point somewhat. The point is not to question something specific; the point is to question everything. Not only should you be sceptic of people who believe that global warming is real and man-made, but also of those who deny this. In fact, what you should do in all cases is not trust anyone, but look at the studies and data yourself, and judge it on sound scientific reasons."

Idealy that is correct but you* cannot have expertise (let alone time) to investigate every issue personally at some point (usually in the land of the lobbyists) a critic turns from a skeptic into a cherry-picking conspiracy nut. This is where "consensus" comes in ("consensus" = "The republic of science"), at some point you have to trust other investigators. So you pick investigators with a good track record to be your surrogates, the most credible are public institutions such as the Royal Academy or NAS or a million other well known acronymns.

If every one of those surrogates agrees on a particular point then it's part of a body of tentative "scientific facts" that are the evidence behind such phrases as "science says light and radio waves are the same thing at different frequencies" or "scientists say a comet or asteroid is the likely cause of the new spot on Jupiter".

A scientific education ( when done properly ) helps you to negotiate this mountain of information more easily and gives you a basic framework to the body of knowledge called science. However self education can also do the job, James Randi is one of my favorite skeptics and his only qualifications are in magic.

I'm not a climatologists but I have followed the topic for nearly three decades. I joined "Al Gore's religion" around 1997 (specifically because of the 1997 IPCC reports). Apparently this makes me harder to convince than NAS who in the late 50's warned the US government that AGW was occuring and have not changed their minds since. My logic goes like this...

Science says:
- The globe is warming.
- Most of the warming is due to CO2 emmissions
- Ignoring the problem is not a rational option.

1. Since 1997 I have not seen any convincing contra-evidence to the consesus. Some of it has made me do a lot of research, most of it has simply been old talking points perpetuated by the Heartland Institute and their affiliates.

2. I cannot name one credible scientific institution that disputes any part of the consesnsus.

3. Dyson is the only credible scientist I can name who still disputes part of the consensus. When he publishes his ideas everyone can check them out.

4. The most interesting critisisms come from members of our own "religion". Especially at my cult leader's web site (realclimate.org), they slay a few psuedo-skeptics for breakfast and then spend the day argueing over real questions such as the "missing methane" that was predicted by climate models.

5. Computer model ensembles for defined senarios give accurate but conservative forecasts. ( I have some expertise in FEA computer simulations and the mathematical training to understand the algorithims )

6. I live in SE Australia [google.com.au] that according to geologic evidence and recent experience is highly sensitive to a warming climate (natural or otherwise).

"Idealy that is correct but you* cannot have expertise (let alone time) to investigate every issue personally"

Typically, you don't need to. Anyone can read any study and get a basic idea of how believable the conclusions are. How big is the sample? Is there a control group? Does the data show causation, or only correlation? Is the data self-reported? There are a bunch of simple questions you can ask to gauge how much stock you should put in a study.

If you don't want to do that, you can, of course, figure out whether to trust the people who wrote the study. Some things to look out for is their qualifications, and who paid for the study.

And if you don't want to do that, I agree with you that trying to figure out what the consensus is is a good idea. Unfortunately, the media is typically a poor way of figuring this out, since they always feel to need to be fair and balanced, while reality is hardly ever fair and balanced. In this particular case, there is no question that the globe is warming, as you say. It is also clear from the data that CO2 is at least partly to blame for the increase in temperature, and there is further no question that mankind is responsible for a sizeable part of all CO2 emissions.

Unfortunately, if you go with many media reports, you don't really get that impression; hence my original point that you should be sceptical.

If anyone, including noted scientists, say anything remotely the opposite of the climate change cabal, they are run out of town, belitted by their peers.

Yup. Same thing that happens to all the poor innocent teachers who try to teach Intelligent Design! I mean, Ben Stein said it was true, so it must be, right?!? I'd love it if you could point out a few examples of these scientists who lost their jobs, and who didn't almost immediately get new jobs at petroleum industry funded think-tanks at several times their original salaries.

I'd also believe you guys more if you could come up with a rational explanation for the massive hoax being perpetrated on the innocent public by the 90% or so of scientist who claim that Global Warming is happening and is caused by man. I've yet to hear anyone come up with a reasonable theory as to why these evil scientists would be doing such a thing. I hear can think of plenty of simple, logical reasons why the oil & coal companies would deny it, though...

There is nothing wrong with questioning the mainstream, but there is a difference between questioning something and having a knee-jerk reaction against it. You seem to be doing the latter. Before you can question something, you need to understand it, and it sounds like you fail pretty badly on that front.

I'd also believe you guys more if you could come up with a rational explanation for the massive hoax being perpetrated on the innocent public by the 90% or so of scientist who claim that Global Warming is happening and is caused by man. I've yet to hear anyone come up with a reasonable theory as to why these evil scientists would be doing such a thing. I hear can think of plenty of simple, logical reasons why the oil & coal companies would deny it, though...

Funny. You think some scientists go for the oil and gas money, but the others don't go for government money to fund research?

You need to recognize that BOTH sides do EVERYTHING they do for money.

It amuses the piss out of me how you can point at the other guys and say they are doing it for money but can't think for a second that maybe your team is doing the exact same thing. Ignorance is bliss isn't it?

With all due respect to an eminent and brilliant physicist, Freeman Dyson is not a climatologist. The very article you link notes that he is a "subversive" who feels it's important to be in opposition. While I find that a commendable trait, it should be noted when considering his "anti-establishment" views. IMO, he's right when he says that global warming is not adequately established. But my metaphor is, "the majority of runs made by fire departments turn out not to be fires; we could save a lot of money by requiring an independent confirmation of a fire before the trucks go out." Maybe it's true, but the potential consequences are too horrible to contemplate.

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." Arthur C. Clarke said that. Dyson, to his credit, does not say climate change is impossible. He merely says he does not believe it to be bad.

Speaks volumes about how much "climate scientists" believe in their own evidence : Not. At. All. Clearly they believe repression is necessary to sustain the global warming theory (never mind anthropogenic global warming).

It also proves that the grandparent posts were correct in asserting that anyone, no matter how reputable, finding anti-global-warming evidence is attacked. I mean, this guy is right up there with Fermi, Hawking, Feynman and other legends.

With all due respect to an eminent and brilliant physicist, Freeman Dyson is not a climatologist.

But Dyson's argument in fact questions the methods and claims of the science of climatology. If his argument is valid, then it does not matter that he is not a climatologist - it makes Dyson's criticisms more urgent, not less.

You should watch the movie Expelled, which covers exactly these topics, but dealing with Intelligent Design. It documents all the people who have lost their jobs or otherwise been punished for teaching ID... Except for one little detail: The movie lies throughout*. One of my favorite examples was when a was "forced" to remove his Intelligent design website from his university's web server. A shocking infringement of academic freedom! Except the professor taught electrical engineering, not evolutionary biology or anything remotely related. Oh, and he still has his job there, and continues to host the website, just on a different server. Maybe not so shocking after all.

Most of the Global Warming deniers have similar stories... They either didn't really suffer the fate that they claim, or the disciplinary act happened for other legitimate reasons but they use their belief to make a shitstorm for their being disciplined. Finally, in a few rare cases like that of George Taylor noted above, their beliefs truly do make them unable to adequately do the job that they were hired to do. You wouldn't hire someone who doesn't believe in evolution to teach a class on evolutionary theory, you wouldn't hire a communist to teach a class on stock trading, and you wouldn't hire someone who doesn't believe in abortion to teach a class on abortion procedures... Why would you hire someone who doesn't believe in global warming to educate the Governor on climate issues effecting his state?

* See Expelled Exposed [expelledexposed.com] for a full refutation of the topics covered in the movie. And to be honest, unless you want to study the techniques of how to (very badly) make a utterly dishonest documentary, I really can't recommend the movie... It doesn't even have much of Stein's normal wit.

My guess is some blanket policy against high resolution spy satellite photos of anything. Also, the arctic actually is currently a relatively hotly disputed area amongst the countries that border it due to the wealth of natural resources. Russia especially has made recent claims of more of a pie slice than what the other neighbors tended to agree with based on some underwater structures they explored.I'm certainly no fan of Bush and did not vote for him but I'm doubtful that this was some kind of cover up against global warming.

It has nothing to do with the ice, really. It's all about where much of the ice is; specifically, a great deal of it is located in a little-known nation just north of America. The American public is largely unaware of it, and knowledge of its existence could shock them to their very cores, should it come out. The only reasonable response is a blanket of secrecy.

This also explains a great deal about Alaskans. Since this "shadow nation" is located east of Alaska, not north, they have a different view of it compared to the other states. And it has changed them.

High resolution satellite photos are classified because the resolution itself is classified. We don't want potential subjects to use photos of innocuous landscape to determine what features the camera is capable of resolving, because that has a lot of implications when you're trying to build decoys or hide troop movements. These particular images have probably been declassified because 1 meter is no longer something anybody is going to get excited over. These days you can buy commercial black-and-white imagery with that resolution.

What's cutting edge on the military side? I dunno. It's almost certainly classified.

I thought I was going to see a significant movement in the ice sheets, on the order of 10's or 100's of miles. From what I saw, the rate of decline was statistically meaningless, measured in mere feet.
My guess is the previous administration was more concerned with releasing something that would show or capabilities of our spy satellites and not trying to conceal this.

You're told secret data has been wrestled from the grasp of the corporates and you're given a link. The page presents a pair of images right at the top, unavoidable; seen before anything is even read. Two images; one of vast quantities of ice, the second utterly free of ice. Global Warming has been implicated before you've read word number one.

If you look carefully you might notice one end of a landing strip just inland in both photos. These photos cover very small areas; only a few miles. The caption reads:

Sea ice forms along the coast in the winter, and generally melts or breaks away by mid July. Observations of sea ice position reveal considerable year-to-year variability. Changes in the timing of coastal sea ice breakup and in the location of offshore sea ice have significant local impacts: ecological, biological, and human. This image series portrays changes in the timing of coastal sea ice breakup, and gives information on smaller scale properties of ice. This information recorded over long periods, is required to understand and model the dynamics of sea ice and how changes or trends develop and influence other systems.

In other words these photos are 'evidence' of nothing. Minor, small scale year-to-year variation in ice flow patterns. The use of these photos in this manner is equivalent to claiming that because there was snow on my walk on January 10, 2008, but none on January 10, 2009, my environment has been ruined by Global Warming.

Yet there it is, fed to the reader at the very start of the story; no disclaimer provided. The pair of photos will now be repeated ad nauseam for years on end around the planet. Biden will have a blown up poster of these photos in his town hall kit by Wednesday. Fresh new memes the huckster elite will use goad "The West" into self inflicted poverty; "See? The planet is in peril! Man must be stopped!"

Here is a recent and well researched report [scienceand...policy.org] on the $79 billion that has been spent by the US government (only) on climate research over the last 20 years. 19 pages and 52 citations. I dare you to read it. Global Warming advocates are not the underdogs. They rule vast quantities of public money.

In almost all other matters you can take it as a given that around Slashdot you will find if not cynics then certainly skeptics. On the other hand if it has a Bush taint, a little anti-business flavor and it's wrapped up in a Global Warming ribbon you people suck it up like hicks at a Benny Hinn sermon.

In other words these photos are 'evidence' of nothing. Minor, small scale year-to-year variation in ice flow patterns. The use of these photos in this manner is equivalent to claiming that because there was snow on my walk on January 10, 2008, but none on January 10, 2009, my environment has been ruined by Global Warming.

Yet there it is, fed to the reader at the very start of the story; no disclaimer provided. The pair of photos will now be repeated ad nauseam for years on end around the planet. Biden will have a blown up poster of these photos in his town hall kit by Wednesday. Fresh new memes the huckster elite will use goad "The West" into self inflicted poverty; "See? The planet is in peril! Man must be stopped!"

In almost all other matters you can take it as a given that around Slashdot you will find if not cynics then certainly skeptics. On the other hand if it has a Bush taint, a little anti-business flavor and it's wrapped up in a Global Warming ribbon you people suck it up like hicks at a Benny Hinn sermon.

You totally summed up what I took away from this article. The picture of the OMG Polar Bear on the tiny little iceberg was the first thing that popped into my head when I saw the photos.
The self inflicted poverty thing, though, that blew my mind. I had never thought of that before.
My first response to this article got modded 'flamebait' so fast I was honestly totally surprised. I am glad to know that I am not the only one who has noticed a recent change in tone around here.

Last year, I had the opportunity to sit in on a lecture from one of my chemistry profs where he talked about some of the misinformation surrounding Global Climate Change. What struck me was when he started taking questions at the end and a kid stood up and said, "Global Warming is the only thing that everyone in the world can rally behind. It's a cause that unites everyone! Why would you want to take that away from us?!".

It was in this moment that I realized why Global Climate Change is so high on so many politicians' agendas: Global Climate Change is the new Religion. It's the one thing that you can get a whole new generation of positive-minded, well-intentioned people to get behind, if you can just convince them that they are all burdened under the Original Sin committed by their predecessors. The new agenda is to convince them that it is their responsibility to Redeem themselves through personal sacrifice.

Because that kid totally nailed it: They need this. They want this. They are dying for something to rally behind and GCC fits the bill, and what right do YOU have to take it from them?

Here is a recent and well researched report [scienceand...policy.org] on the $79 billion that has been spent by the US government (only) on climate research over the last 20 years.

Interesting. It mentions that ~$4 billion per year that goes into producing scientific papers that indicate that global warming is happening, but it doesn't mention anything about the trillions of dollars involved in the fossil fuel industry. The institute that put out that paper - where does it get its funding?

In other words these photos are 'evidence' of nothing. Minor, small scale year-to-year variation in ice flow patterns.

In other words, these photos are circumstantial evidence. By themselves, they prove nothing. But when you combine them with the hundreds of thousands of other 'small scale' pictures showing retreating ice and weight them side by side with the far fewer images of advancing ice you get a clear pictures. It's still not 'proof' in a rigorous scientific sense, but it's far more than enough to hang a man.

What you seem not to understand in your rant is that these pictures are not 'evidence' and they are not misrepresenting what is going on with the planet. They are just representative samples to give a face to it. You can't show a close up of every location on the planet in a single page.

The climate is seriously fucked up, and we did it. That's a fact. Get over it. Or repent, if that's your thing. Waiting for the sea levels to rise so much that it's plainly obvious, then blaming everybody else for 'not doing anything about it' might make one feel better, but it doesn't do jack to help solve the problem.

In almost all other matters you can take it as a given that around Slashdot you will find if not cynics then certainly skeptics. On the other hand if it has a Bush taint, a little anti-business flavor and it's wrapped up in a Global Warming ribbon you people suck it up like hicks at a Benny Hinn sermon.

Not really. Mostly it is driven by intelligence and facts. It just so happens that reality has a liberal bias, after all.

Interesting report, though the spin is strong with this one. I was a bit surprised at that $79 billion number. Looking at the source material, though, it's not that shocking. The figure includes all expenditure related to climate change, which casts a pretty wide net: DOE, NASA, NSF, USAID, Commerce, EPA, Agriculture, HHS, Treasury, DoD, Interior, Transportation, State, Smithsonian, HUD, Trade.

I find it more interesting that despite all the obvious signs that the Bush administration was anti-science, the cl

This is a great example of sensationalized cherry-picked anecdotal evidence...which in reality means nothing. The picture showing ice was taken during an abnormal year. The ice melts away every year, usually in July. It took longer to melt in 2006 thanks in part to their being more than normal amounts of "multi-year" ice shoved down from the arctic that year.

Also there's a lot of surface heating related to loss of ice. The change isn't slight either. The classic test is of coarse laying out black and white cards on a sunny day to see their temperature. The black is drastically hotter than the white. Ground and water are quite dark compared to ice so the increase is disproportionate to the ice loss. Loosing surface area of ice during the summer could equal or exceed warming from CO2 over the next century and it's often ignored in temperature projections. I would

The great irony of the glacier retreat being the harbinger of doom for humanity is that on most continents the glacial retreat is uncovering substantial quantities of archaeological evidence. I wonder what the people whose archaeological evidence we are finding thought about the glaciers when they encroached on their lives thousands of years ago. It is an interesting juxtaposition.

I don't know if you intended the strawman or not, but allow me to debunk it anyway.

Yes, humans have lived in warmer climates with less glaciers, and colder climates with more glaciers.

There were also a hell of a lot less of them.

The danger of global warming/climate change has never been a threat to the overall existence of humanity (aside from ranting hyperbolic morons). It is however a threat to the maintenance of modern civilization if it causes enough damage to agricultural yields (whether or not it will do this is debatable, and very very complicated).

You seem to be making a case that the earth is overpopulated. And, by extension, we are poisoning ourselves with our waste products. If so, I'll have to point out that this is indeed a natural process. Check out any laboratory with cultures of bacteria.

Meanwhile - I have to point out that the GP's post seems to have gone over your head, or at least you dismiss his reasoning. The earth has warmed and cooled many times in the past. In fact, the earth has warmed and cooled within recent prehistory. That

You seem to be making a case that the earth is overpopulated. And, by extension, we are poisoning ourselves with our waste products. If so, I'll have to point out that this is indeed a natural process. Check out any laboratory with cultures of bacteria.

IF the worst case climate change scenarios are true, then yes that is how I would describe it. And yes, it is a common natural phenomenon. It is still not in our best interest for that to happen. HOWEVER I am not convinced that the worst case scenarios are true--I'm not convinced they aren't true either--I'm fully skeptical on the matter, I just don't know (and no, I don't reflexively trust simplistic surveys of experts--and I unfortunately don't have time to review the extensive literature on the subje

Where did I go crazy? Where did I call him a denier? Where am I a zealot? Please point out the zealotry.

The whole point of the line you quoted was my acknowledging the exact opposite of what you're accusing me of claiming--that the OP may very well be a reasonable person who did not imply what I saw in his post.

My concern however was that other people would see the implication and think it was a valid point (again, a point the OP may very well never have even thought of, he may have just been humorously

What is this strawman you speak of? And what is it that you're debunking? The post you're replying to, simply points out that receding glacier tends to reveal archeological evidences of earlier humans, and muses of what they may have thought of the glacier change. Your knee-jerk reaction, suspecting alterior motive, is the reason why I call you a zealot.

Man -- I was about to mod you up till you hit on the racist BS. Overbreeding is rampant everywhere.

The fact is, the single most polluting thing a person can do is have kids. I'm intentionally child free so in the balance of things, I could drive a hummer, alone, with extra lead weights in the back, 100 miles per day. I could leave my lights on 24/7, run AC to frigid temps in the summer, blast the heat in the winter, keep a propane flare burning ten feet tall day and night in the back yard, and still not come close to the devastation caused by parenthood.

I don't actually live my life that way, because I'm a bit frugal. What mystifies me is why words such as "conservation" and "conservative" have such differing application when both imply frugality to me -- frugality in how we use environmental resources, and frugality in how we use financial resources. I want to see the birth of the frugal party. Pun intended.

Glaciers are like batteries. With a battery, you can store up power when you are near an outlet, so you can continue to operate your device later when you aren't near an outlet. This allows continuous operation irrespective of your proximity to a receptacle.

Glaciers store up water in the form of ice during the winter. Then, in summer when precipitation is less frequent, they melt and release that water. This allows continuous access to water irrespective of the immediate level of precipitation.

Yes, we could build more reservoirs, but talk about expense. Plus they suffer silting issues and large areas have to be destroyed to build them. And if the rains stop falling anyway, then what? Build more?

How can we explain this logic to a billion zombied eyed smiling customers waiting in line to buy a Nano? [wikipedia.org] I fear that we will be saying "Ta Ta" to the glaciers that feed the many rivers that feed the Ganges [wikipedia.org].

"The Greenland was once actually green."Really? In your life time? You must be really, really old! As far as my history books go, Greenland has been a frozen semi-continent, well, except for now that the ice pack on it is also melting due to rising arctic temperatures,.. Global Warming.

Okay, I'll be fair about your statement. Once upon a time there were dinosaurs roaming the lands, and probably around that time when Iceland was located near the equator, it was green and lush. Sure, your point has a small bit of value. But completely irrelevant in the context of this thread.

You are aware, aren't you, that the start of the Industrial Revolution roughly coincides with the end of the Little Ice Age? Things started to get warmer long before industry turned from water power to steam.

And aren't you aware that volcano activity was heightened during the Little Ice Age? Indeed, one scientist concluded with help from the weather records of Benjamin Franklin that a volcanic eruption was partially responsible for the cold weather during the period it was written, based on his description of clouds obscuring the Moon.

It's not really what I'd call a "debate". Only one side is reading and countering the other side's claims with rational arguments; the other side is simply parroting long-discredited talking points ad nauseam.

The funny thing? Both sides will agree with the above statement, but will disagree on its interpretation.

And there you have it folks- a classical false argument by claiming that the other party said something they did not.

No one's saying the industrial revolution was a sin. Sin doesn't come into anything; this isn't religion.

The industrial revolution was the beginning of an upward swing in our carbon emissions. The emissions have had a warming effect. We can subsequently choose what we'd like to do about this, especially in light of technology available now which wasn't available at the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Earth doesn't particularly care if it gets warmer. We (and a number of other species) probably do. If we don't like the consequences of warming, we have the option to decide that they're bad enough for us to take action to change them.

But that's a little too logical, apparently, so you go on perverting arguments so that you can claim to "win" without actually standing on any remotely logical basis.

9/11 called, they want their planes in the air. You're not seriously discounting that humans impact temperature are you? I live in Phoenix and even the weatherman goes on tv and comfortably states the blatantly obvious that all this concrete pavement does indeed increase temperatures. This is why the city is so much warmer than the rest of the desert. Man kind has an serious impact on it's environment no matter how much you wish to believe that we don't.

You need to understand that the Earth doesn't care if we live or die, it will go on spawning more life as it always has. The Earth heats up on its own and cools down on its own. The difference is that humans are now messing with the Earth to a large enough extend that it will probably swing more wildly from one extreme to the other as far as temperatures go. We're on our way up, we can either act to slow it down, or ride the wave and let millions die when storms get stronger and stronger and droughts force more and more to starve to death. Humans will survive, our way of life however will be greatly impacted.

No one can state when the massive changes will occur so there's no need to panic and destroy economies but we need to act to preserve our way of life.

The problem this time round (according to 97% of climatologists [wikipedia.org]) is that it's happening much faster than ever before thanks to human behaviour, and that much of the ecology won't be able to adapt quickly enough.

Us humans doubtless will be able to adapt, but in the short term the impact in terms of our economies and human suffering, will be considerable [wikipedia.org].

Earth's survival was never in jeopardy. It's Human survival we worry about.

Humans will survive too. Maybe in smaller numbers, but is that really all that bad ? Exponential growth is not sustainable anyway.

It would be great if those "smaller numbers" could come about through enlightened voluntary birth control. This is - regrettably - highly unlikely, and most people think that the more likely way in which it will happen - Pestilence, War, Famine, and Death - should be generally avoided to minimize human suffering.

See, this is why I try not to get into the specifics. Climate change is a complex, interdependant subject and you can cherry-pick any result you like, but that doesn't mean you understand what's actually happening.

Either you choose to believe that nearly all climatologists are incompetent and that non-scientist bloggers know way more about the field of climatology than people who've studied it for years, or you pull your head out of the sand and start listening to the people who've seen all the data and are actually qualified to have an opinion.

Either you choose to believe that nearly all climatologists are incompetent and that non-scientist bloggers know way more about the field of climatology than people who've studied it for years, or you pull your head out of the sand and start listening to the people who've seen all the data and are actually qualified to have an opinion.

I wouldn't go as far as to say they're incompetent. I do think they're jumping to conclusions, and I do think it is just opinion repeated enough to become "fact". And I'm sure a lot of them have the same feeling, but don't want to mess up their careers by speaking against the current zeitgeist. A few _have_ tried. Pointing out fallacies in the man made global warming theories is akin to walking around cursing people back in the middle ages. It only gets you burned at the stake, so why do it. When it's not "

Trying to predict the weather is a LOT more difficult than predicting climate. Predicting the weather compared to climate is like predicting the output of a Random Number Generator over the next 14 iterations compared to the output of a RNG over the next 1000 or more.

Over 14 iterations the RNG (assuming 0-1 range), the average is likely to vary significantly from 0.5 and predicting which side of 0.5 it will fall is impossible, but over 1000 iterations, it will be very close to 0.5.

Pointing out fallacies in the man made global warming theories is akin to walking around cursing people back in the middle ages. It only gets you burned at the stake, so why do it. When it's not "allowed" to point out issues with a theory, any theory, it has become religion, not science. That alone should make us all very suspicious.

Scientists spend their lives poking holes in other people's theories, for their own personal academic gain. Pull your head out of your ass and read the comments section of a journal. Of course, they are more along the lines of poking holes in the specific theory of T. Cobbley et. al., because few scientists are arrogent enough to believe they can single handedly poke holes in every single theory out there in one go.

And yes, anyone who says "aaaaa it's all wrong!!1!one" is going to be ignored since they bring nothing new to the debate.

There are too many instances of "we can't think of any other reason, so this must be man-made global warming", or "we have never seen this before, and we don't know what's causing it, but we're certain it's human emissions". I'm sorry, but you're just ruining your credibility as a scientist when stating you don't understand it, then in the same sentence claim to be an authority able to state the cause.

Are you talking about science or the popular press. If the former, then [citation needed]. For some reason many non scientists seem to confuse the two.

There are just too many variables. We can barely predict tomorrow's weather with any degree of accuracy (in some areas even that's stretching it), but we are supposed to believe any scientist that claims to have GLOBAL weather licked? I can't help but think those guys got an overdose of arrogance. Yes, they're very different things, but that's still faith, not science.

OK, this is a clear indication that you're a fool and have never bothered to verse yourself in even the basics of the field. Climate is not weather. Read that sentance. Think about it. Can I predict the weather this time next year in London? NO. Can I predict things about the climate (eg it won't be snowing)? Yes I can. That is the difference.

And here you are, blindly dismissing the work of thousands of people and caliming that they, not you are suffering from arrogance. I am frankly suprised that your ego is not so inflated that it has caused you to float off in to the sky.

electric

It will work in reducing emissions provided there is a switch to renewables (USA, Austrailia can manage) and/or nuclear (more densely populated countries). Otherwise, not so much. But see, you are at it again. Vastly over-simplifying EVERY SINGLE POINT.

When it's not "allowed" to point out issues with a theory, any theory, it has become religion, not science.

A fair point, but I've seen more cases [ucsusa.org] of pressure to suppress pro-climate-change evidence, rather than the other way around. It's ironic that TFA is also about the release of relevant data that was withheld [guardian.co.uk] apparently for political reasons.

you're just ruining your credibility as a scientist when stating you don't understand it, then in the same sentence claim to be an authority able to state the cause

Just because a scientist doesn't fully understand something doesn't mean he/she can't draw useful conclusions. We don't know why gravity works the way it does, but we can predict its effects pretty well. In this case, the climatologists seem quite convinced, despite what they don't know. Are you more knowledgeable about the data and its uncertainties than they are?

So... the vast majority (if not all) climatologists are actually lying about their conclusions because they want to get certain candidates elected, thus helping to perpetuate a political climate which is favourable to them being given grants to pursue further studies in the field that they've been lying about.

And this is the problem with people like you. You assume everything must be poitical. Well, not everything is. Especially not facts. What other scientific ideas are you willing to ascribe to politics? Gravity? Electromagnetism? Thermodynamics (that's even worse than climate change: it says we're really screwed). Evolution?...logical that we're still warming up from it.

You don't think the climate scientists might have noticed that too? Perhaps if you actually took a look at the work that they do rather than simply spouting off you might rrealise that.

I'm aware that liberals with mod points will probably mod me troll for daring to disagree with them

And this is the problem with people like you. You assume everything must be poitical. Well, not everything is.

Of course global warming is a political issue. Any issue which calls for governments to do something is a political issue. Claiming that global warming is not a political issue is about as disingenuous as claiming that intelligent design is not about religion.

Name one global warming activist whom does not think that the solution to the problem is to enact strict world wide government control on first world economies. Name on global warming activist that thinks that the best way to reduce CO2 emissions would be to encourage China, India, and other developing nations to adopt freedom and capitalism, so that their economies can progress as quickly as possible into the green tech era.

It's absurd to be basing multi-trillion dollar policy decisions on this garbage.

But you have to base them on something, and the policy-makers are right to base them on the overwhelming consensus of climatologists. What else do they have to go by? Even if those 97% somehow turned out to be wrong, isn't it better at this stage to mould the policies so that our impact on the climate is as small as possible, just in case?

"it's happening much faster than ever before thanks to human behaviour"
that's the leap that you aren't being very convincing about. there seems to be this movement of "omgz everything humanz do is wrong!" which isn't science. global warming advocates can't remove the emotion from their arguments, which makes me suspicous.

The great thing about science is that the OP doesn't need to be convincing. Anyone can look at the data and reach a conclusion.

In case you don't want to become an expert in the field, however, and are willing to accept an overwhelming majority of existing experts, you would find that "97.4% believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures." (from the OP's link).

Perhaps if you didn't accept that poll, you might find that "Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.". And so on.

Personally I don't get it. Why is it so hard to accept? Reliance on academic authories has its pitfalls of course, but a certain point you need the humility to accept that there is no debate over this particular point among experts.

It reminds me of the "debate" over whether or not 0.999... = 1. Non-mathematicians will swear up and down that it can't be. They'll pull out everything they've got, but at the end of the day, just because you don't understand it doesn't make it so. Read with a careful eye, but c'mon, the cause of the current change in global mean temperatures is no longer a debate.

That's exactly the issue. I'm not either - but I give a lot more weight to the people who are.

Facts are indeed facts, and I would bet a lot of money that you haven't looked at nearly as many of them as a climatologist. What is it about being partially-informed that makes people so willing to declare fully-informed people flat-out wrong?

"We're talking about physical science here, not the humanities. Facts are facts"

Physical Fact #1: CO2 is a GHG, it's properties are well known.
Physical Fact #2: CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased by ~30% since the start of the industrial revolution.
Physical Fact #3: Areosols (sulphur,etc) have a cooling effect.
Physical Fact #4: The warming effect of increased CO2 outweighs the cooling effect of increased areosols in the 20th century.
Emprical fact #1: We can reconstruct the 20th century g

Personally, I'd be happy to live in tubes and push buttons [wikipedia.org]. And when are we going to build our O'Neill spheres out in L5? If our climate is irrevocably destroyed, I'd prefer to observe it from altitude.

I think the idea is that they classify everything by default as they don't want whoever to figure out how good the satellites are, though this is likely the result of bureaucratic inertia, as 1m doesn't seem that impressive.

I guess the usual, it gives away too much about their capabilities, orbits and nobody had made sure there wasn't anything sensitive on that ice. Military intelligence is also a game of economics, even if other nations could find things out for themselves there's no reason giving them free information of any kind.

With a 15 m resolution, each pixel is 15^2 m^2 ->225 m^2 wide. Is pretty rough except for a few uses, such land uses analysis - since it's difficult or impossible to spot small areas in it. Anyway, it's not like 15 meters were not useful, just 1 meter is better.

Just so you don't go through the whole evening in suspense, it's in TFA - there are numerous puddles of sizes in meters that are important to the reflectivity of the ice. The older pics didn't resolve the puddles well - the newer ones do. Just better data.